ALL ABOUT 
INFANT BAPTISM 

=~ ' By - 

CHARLES L. BROOKS 








ALL ABOUT INFANT BAPTISM 



COPYRIGHT, I923 
BY 

LAMAR & BARTON 



NOV 15 IUj 




© Cl A 7 5 9 8 4 5 


VO \ 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Introductory Chapter. 7 

I. The Attitude of Jesus. 15 

II. Apostolic Practice. 26 

III. The Practice of the Fathers. 41 

IV. Under the Great Commission. 58 


( 5 ) 











ALL ABOUT INFANT BAPTISM 


INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER 
The Place of the Child in the Kingdom of God 

The right of children to baptism naturally takes 
its place in a spiritual interpretation of Christianity, 
as indicating the emphasis which the New Testa¬ 
ment lays on the place of the child in the kingdom 
of God. 

Methodism teaches that all children are redeemed 
by Christ and are, therefore, entitled to baptism; and 
the baptism of children lays on the Church and the 
parents the duty of seeing that the children are 
brought up in the bosom of the Church and under the 
influence of Christian instruction. 

The worst features in connection with the denial of 
the right of the child to baptism are the doctrine of 
total depravity out of which it arises and the neglect 
of the religious education of the child to which it 
leads. A preacher of another denomination was 
heard to say that, in order that his own children 
might be properly instructed in the fundamental 
truths of the gospel, he kept in his home a black¬ 
board on which he had texts of Scripture written, and 
that there was one passage which he kept ever before 
their eyes—namely, “Ye are of your father the devil.” 
Possibly few go to that extreme. But was he not 
right, if that is what he believed? Ought not the 
truth to be taught? We, on the contrary, believe 
that, by right of redemption, our children belong to 

(7) 



8 


All About Infant Baptism 


God. In baptism we recognize this and assume 
publicly and solemnly our God-given duty to bring 
them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 

The doctrine of “total depravity” has not been 
able to find itself at home in our Methodist theology. 
It may be defined as meaning that “all man’s powers 
have come under the influence of sin,” or that “no 
man is able of himself and without the assistance of 
the Holy Spirit to come to God and continue in the 
Christian life”; and if this is what is meant by “total 
depravity,” no one could reasonably object to the 
phrase. But that is not what the words originally 
meant; they originally meant exactly what they say. 
The phrase is at home, therefore, only in an ultra- 
Calvinistic system. It ought to be dropped from 
Methodist usage. Even our most conservative 
theologians have seen this. Richard Watson, for 
instance, is careful to say: “In consequence of the 
atonement of .Christ offered to all, the Holy Spirit 
is administered to all. The virtues of the unre¬ 
generate man are not from man, but from God.” 
The “unregenerate man,” therefore, has some 
“virtues”—he is not “totally depraved.” Dr. W. 
B. Pope, possibly our greatest Methodist theologian, 
has rightly guarded our Methodist doctrine by his 
emphasis on “prevenient grace”—grace going before 
conversion. Says he: “Human nature is lost, and 
yet we are still the offspring of God. The natural and 
mcral image has departed in its glory, and yet it is 
recognized as in some sense still existing. In short, 
original sin and original grace met in the mystery of 
mercy at the very gate of Paradise.” I quote also 
from Dr. Stearns: “It would be doing violence to the 


Introductory Chapter 


9 


simplest facts of psychology to say that little chil¬ 
dren, who have not yet reached the point where they 
can make any of the great choices of life, are wholly 
alienated from God. I need scarcely say that there 
is not a hint of such a doctrine in the Bible and that 
it finds no support in experience.’' 

We hold, therefore, that Horace Bushnell’s great 
thesis is in perfect accord with the teaching of Christ 
and the apostles: “That the child is to grow up a 
Christian and never know himself as being otherwise .” 
We begin, therefore, by bringing our children to 
Christ in holy baptism and solemnly assuming in the 
presence of Almighty God the obligations of Chris¬ 
tian parenthood. 

To deny baptism to the children of Christians 
would have been considered unnatural and unchris¬ 
tian in the Apostolic Church. For in the thinking 
and practice of the Jews and early Christians the 
family was the social and religious unit. When a 
father went over from the Gentiles to the Jews, his 
family—his wife and children—went with him. 
And when a father, in the Apostolic Church, was 
baptized, his household was baptized with him: 
“The idea that a parent should enter a religion or 
covenant relation with God as an individual merely 
— i. e. f by himself as distinct from his immediate 
family, would never occur to the ancients, least of all 
to a Jew. There were no ‘individuals’ in our sharp 
modern sense of the term. All were seen as members 
of larger units, of which the family was the chief in 
the time of Christ, when the clan and nation were no 
longer so overshadowing as in earlier days. The 
paterfamilias included legally and in social ethics the 


10 


All About Infant Baptism 


members of his household. Any change in his reli¬ 
gious status ipso facto affected them. Hence to any 
one familiar with the modes of antique thought, no 
proof in any given case is needed that children from 
their birth were regarded as sharing their parents’ 
religious status, objectively or socially considered: 
the onus probandi falls entirely on those who under 
the influence of certain modern modes of thought 
would maintain the contrary.” (See Article on 
Baptism in Hastings* Encyclopedia of Religion and 
Ethics.) Such was the custom, and nothing else was 
thought of. “It would have seemed an unnatural 
thing that the father should make a complete change 
in his religious condition and that his children should 
be excluded from it.” 

And this is a most important view of the truth 
which we Christians of the twentieth century, with 
our strong insistence on individual responsibility for 
character and behavior, too often entirely overlook. 
The family is a unit. The family name, the family 
features, and the family characteristics, continuing 
from generation to generation, all reveal this. More¬ 
over, the home has its own atmosphere, whether re¬ 
ligious or irreligious. Physically, the child is born 
when it comes into the world—born of a mother. 
But, so to speak, another birth awaits it—the birth 
of character. Now, the home is the womb in which is 
formed the character of the child—its general dis¬ 
position, its mental outlook, and its religious quality. 
All members of the family are bound up in the one 
bundle of life. What affects one affects all. What 
affects all affects each. And, most of all, what in¬ 
fluences the father and mother influences their 


Introductory Chapter 


11 


children. Beyond question, children born in Chris¬ 
tian families do have special religious privileges and 
advantages. The child that is baptized is not 
baptized simply as a separate individual; he is 
baptized as a member of a Christian family. He has 
parents or relatives or guardians who solemnly as¬ 
sume holy obligations on his behalf. This is what is 
meant in a passage of Scripture which has puzzled 
some readers: “For the unbelieving husband, is 
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
sanctified by the husband: else were your children 
unclean; but now are they holy.” (1 Cor. vii. 14.) 
As another has said with true spiritual insight: “ It is 
not meant here that the children are actually and 
inwardly holy persons, but that having one Chris¬ 
tian parent is enough to change their presumptive 
relation to God, enough to make them Christian 
children as distinguished from the children of un¬ 
believers.” And so, in the teaching of the Bible, the 
father is not considered just as an individual man, 
without relation to his wife and children; neither is 
the mother considered as an individual without re¬ 
lation to her family—they are considered as father 
and mother along with their children and in relation 
to their children. So when the father was baptized, 
along with him were baptized all his household. In 
harmony with this conception of the family as a unit, 
we read that the Lord said: “I have known Abraham, 
to the end that he may command his children and 
his household after him, that they may keep the ways 
of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice.” And 
we read also the word of Peter to the multitude on the 
day of Pentecost: “Repent, and be baptized every 


12 


All About Infant Baptism 


one of you in the name of Jesus Christ. . . . For 
the promise is unto you, and to your children.” 
(Acts ii. 38, 39.) 

“0 God, great Father, Lord and King! 

Our children unto thee we bring; 

And strong in faith, and hope, and love. 

We dare thy steadfast word to prove. 

Thy covenant kindness did of old 
Our fathers and their seed enfold, 

That ancient promise standeth sure, 

And shall while heaven and earth endure." 

(Bishop E. E. Hoss.) 

Few things could be more hurtful to the cause of 
Christ than the disappearance of the apostolic 
custom of Infant Baptism from the usage of the 
Church. Such Christian denominations as refuse 
baptism to Christ’s little ones are suffering a loss 
much more serious than they themselves are aware 
of—a loss which is suggestive of the loss the Roman 
Catholic Church suffers on account of the celibacy of 
its priesthood. One cannot estimate the contribu¬ 
tion which the evangelical parsonage has made to the 
intellectual and spiritual wealth of the world. One 
needs only a superficial acquaintance with English 
and American history to discover that out from the 
parsonages of Protestant ministers has gone a con¬ 
tinual stream of teachers and preachers and states¬ 
men and physicians who have made a never-to-be- 
forgotten contribution to the welfare of the world— 
not to speak of the women of lovely character who 
have gone forth to beautify and sweeten all life. And 
there can be no doubt that such denominations as 
insist that little children are “totally depraved” and 


Introductory Chapter 


13 


deny them the right to baptism have, by this teach¬ 
ing and practice, placed themselves in a position 
where they cannot possibly give proper attention to 
the religious education of their children. The loss 
they suffer therefrom is simply incalculable! So 
important is it that childhood should have its rights 
in the kingdom of God allowed, that those Churches 
which, by their doctrine and history, are hopelessly 
committed to opposition to Infant Baptism ought to 
find some way to recognize the place of the child in 
the kingdom and ought to adopt some formal and 
public method by which parents might be brought to 
acknowledge the rights of their children and to 
dedicate them, in the presence of the Christian con¬ 
gregation, to the service of God and the care of 
the Church. 

The significance of baptism for children, then, is 
just this: It does what Christ did—it sets the child in 
the midst. It puts the child in the central place in 
the mind and heart of the Church. What a difference 
Christ has made for childhood! The Greeks and 
Romans seemed to have no appreciation of the value 
of a little child. Even a kind-hearted father could 
write to his wife, who had been expecting the arrival 
of a baby when he left home: “If you are delivered, 
if it was a male, let it live; if it was a female, cast it 
out.” How horrible! “If it was a female, cast it 
out” to the kites or the crocodiles! In what amazing 
contrast are the words of Jesus, “In heaven their 
angels do always behold the face of my Father”! 
Which is to say that childhood is especially dear to 
God and that God takes a special interest in little 
children. (Matt, xviii. 10.) And that picture of 


14 


All About Infant Baptism 


Christ with a baby in his arm—how it has drawn all 
hearts toward him! Artists have delighted to paint 
that picture; poets have united to sing about it; the 
hopes and aspirations of fathers and mothers have 
turned toward it. It has had larger influence on the 
thought of the world in reference to childhood than 
all the teachings of all other teachers: “And they were 
bringing unto him little children, that he should 
touch them: and the disciples rebuked them. But 
when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, 
and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come 
unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the 
kingdom of God. . . . And he took them in his arms, 
and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.” 
(Mark x. 13-16.) 

Edwin D. Mouzon. 

Nashville, Tenn. 


CHAPTER I 
The Attitude of Jesus 

“Suffer the little children to come unto me, and 
forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.” 
(Mark x. 14.) 

Foreword 

I recently heard it proclaimed from a pulpit that 
the ministers of all Churches other than the Baptist 
are not true ministers; that they disseminate doc¬ 
trines of error; and that, though they be able to 
persuade many to accept their views, deep down in 
their hearts they know they are wrong. 

I take this as a challenge to me either to give a 
valid Scriptural reason for the faith that is in me or to 
submit to the imputation of dishonesty. Having 
spent the major part of my life in a search for truth 
and, as a result of that search, cast my lot with the 
Methodists as being correct in their interpretation of 
Scripture, I cannot submit to the imputation and 
must therefore take up the gage of battle. This I do 
all the more cheerfully, because one of the obligations 
to which I subscribed when I was ordained an elder in 
the Church of Christ was that I would be ready with 
all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all 
erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's 
word. 

This gives me a wide range of latitude and a liberty 
coextensive with that of the Bible. I am under the 
compulsion of conscience to teach no doctrine 
which the word of God does not authorize; nor does 

(15) 


16 


All About Infant Baptism 


the Church, by the terms of the ordination which she 
imposed, hold me to do so. 

Now, since the Church says, “The baptism of 
young children is to be retained in the Church,” and 
I upon the authority of the Church hold and teach 
the same, the obligation is upon me to give a good 
and sufficient reason out of God’s word for that prac¬ 
tice or to abandon it. Most cheerfully do I assume 
the task. 

I am sensible that in pursuance of that task I shall 
have to pull up some rank weeds of error that have 
long been growing, not only unhindered but even 
cultivated, in the soil of many hearts. The tearing up 
may give pain to some, but they should thank God 
for the privilege of bemg brought to a knowledge of 
the truth, though it be by a painful process. If they 
be true children of God and not mere partisans, or if 
they love truth for its own sake, they will be grate¬ 
ful. 

I shall not be so rude and unlike my Christ as to 
unchurch any who do not hold with me on this great 
doctrine. I have always been able to find some true 
Christians in all denominations. Some of them have 
been translated to membership in “the Church of the 
first-born, ” and some remain to this day. To this one 
rule of Mr. Wesley I would bring all men if I could: 
“In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in 
all things, charity.” 

1. Who They Were That Were Brought to Jesus 

(a) Ta paidia (Greek), diminutive of pais, a little 
or young child (up to seven years). (Liddell and 
Scott.) 


The Attitude of Jesus 


17 


“With reference to age, child, boy.” (Cremer.) 
For the meaning he cites, along with other passages, 
Matthew ii. 16: “Then Herod, when he saw that he 
was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, 
and sent forth, and slew all the children [tons pai- 
dous] that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts 
thereof, from two years old and under , according to 
the time he had diligently inquired of the wise 
men.” 

“Infants, children, little ones. In the singular, 
universally, of an infant just born.” (Thayer.) He 
cites Matthew ii. 8: “And he sent them to Bethle¬ 
hem, and said, Go search diligently for the young 
child [peri tou paidiou ]; and when ye have found 
him, bring me word again, that I may come and 
worship him also.” 

(b) Parvuli (Latin), diminutive of parvus , little 
children. Now, since parvus means “small, little, 
slight,” the diminutive parvuli must refer to some¬ 
thing smaller, less, slighter than the original. Hence, 
parvuli must mean the least specimens of humanity 
—babes. 

(c) Petits enfants (French), little infants. “En- 
fants,” children; “petits,” little; children small in 
size, babes. 

(d) Die kindlein (German): “kind,” children; 
diminutive “lein,” little; hence, little children, 
babes. 

(e) To show that the meaning includes nursing 
infants , I refer to Luke xviii. 15, 16: “And they 
brought unto him also infants [ta hrephe ], that he 
would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they 
rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and 

2 


18 


All About Infant Baptism 


said, Suffer little children [ta paidia] to come unto 
me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom 
of God.” 

Here we see that in verse 15 ta brephe is used in 
speaking of the children that were brought to Christ; 
in verse 16, ta paidia . So the terms are inter¬ 
changeable. Ta brephe properly means children not 
weaned , infants , babes , sucklings. Thayer gives two 
meanings for the word: (a) An unborn child, embryo, 
fetus; (b) a new-born child, an infant, a babe. Simi¬ 
larly also Liddell and Scott: (a) A babe in the womb; 
(b) a new-born babe; (c) of beasts, a foal, whelp, 
cub. As an unborn babe is manifestly not a subject 
of baptism, the Roman Catholics to the contrary 
notwithstanding, we are limited for baptismal 
purposes to the one view, “a new-born babe.” 
Thayer cites in justification Luke ii. 12: “And this 
shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe 
[brephos] wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a 
manger.” 

So we are bound to conclude that those whom Christ 
commanded to be brought to him for his blessing were 
little children ranging in age from birth to seven years. 

2. The Purpose for Which They Were Brought 

They were brought that Jesus might touch and 
bless them. But one objects that there is nothing in 
this about infant baptism. No, not directly; but 
there is a complaint lodged here against their being 
brought to Jesus, and that complaint brought forth 
a rebuke from Jesus which establishes beyond all 
question the right of children to the kingdom of God. 
By their very innocence, their sinlessness, they are 


The Attitude of Jesus 


19 . 


entitled to membership in the invisible kingdom. 
By whose authority are they denied the right to the 
visible? And how are they to enter into that visible 
kingdom except by water baptism? 

That children were members of the Church, As¬ 
sembly, or Congregation under the old order no sane 
man will deny. The term by which that body was 
designated is either sunagoge or ekklesia , from which 
we get our words “synagogue” and “ecclesia.” 
The first time the word occurs in the Bible is at 
Exodus xii. 3: “Speak ye unto all the congregation of 
Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they 
shall take to them every man a lamb, according to 
the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house.” 
Translated “assembly,” the same word is found 
again at Exodus xii. 6. Tracing it on through the 
references given by the concordance, we find as 
follows: (a) Exodus xxxix. 32, the word is not found 
in the original text, (b) Psalm i. 5, the word ren¬ 
dered “ congregation ” is houle , evidently a mis¬ 
translation. (c) Exodus xvi. 2, Leviticus iv. 13, 
Numbers xiv. 10, Proverbs xxi. 16, the word is 
sunagoge . (d) Nehemiah v. 13, Psalm xxvi. 12, 

Joel ii. 16, the word is ekklesia . 

Now the question arises, Who composed the 
“ congregation ” ? The answer is found in 2 Chroni¬ 
cles xx. 13: “And all Judah stood before the Lord, 
with their little ones [ta paidia ], their wives, and their 
children.” But lest it be argued that “Judah” did 
not properly constitute the “congregation,” being 
but one tribe, let us turn to Joel ii. 16: “Gather the 
people [laos, the people of God], sanctify the congre¬ 
gation [ekklesia], assemble the elders, gather the 


20 


All About Infant Baptism 


children [nepia, “an infant, little child”—Thayer], 
and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go 
forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her 
closet.” 

Antipaedobaptists are sometimes very careful to tell 
us that if we want to know the meaning of a Greek 
word we must go to the Greek, particularly if that 
word happens to be baptidzo. Let them now take a 
little of their own medicine. Ekklesia is a Greek 
word. We have just found it employed at Joel ii. 
16, where it is translated “congregation.” And be it 
remembered that “ congregation ” had nursing in¬ 
fants in it. Coming on to the New Testament, we find 
the same term used in Ephesians i. 22, 23: “And hath 
put all things under his feet, and given him to be 
head over all things to the church [ekklesia], which is 
his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.” 
Christ is the head; the Church, his body. The same 
idea is presented in Ephesians v. 23. 

If nursing children belonged to the body of Christ 
in the old days, then they belong to the body of 
Christ in the new. The term has not changed its 
meaning. Theodosia Ernest, a Baptist authority, 
says so (page 91, volume 2): “Christ found the word 
with its meaning already fixed. The meaning was 
suited to his purpose, and he therefore took it and 
appropriated it to his institution. By the appropria¬ 
tion it did not lose its original signification: its mean¬ 
ing was not changed.” 

Indeed! Then why do not Baptists baptize their 
infants? Yet this same author (page 110, volume 2) 
has the face to say: “The Presbyterian Church and 
the Episcopal Church and the Methodist Church 


The Attitude of Jesus 21 

are open and systematic rebels aminst the law of 
Christ r 

But the Church of Christ, they say, had no ex¬ 
istence until Christ came. Theodosia Ernest (page 
36, volume 2) says: " We have here the first criterion 
of the Christian institution: that is, that it was or¬ 
ganized and had its beginning in the time or about 
the time that Christ was on the earth." 

What a world of uncertainty in that! Even the 
elect themselves cannot tell exactly when they had 
their beginning. They are not agreed among them¬ 
selves. If they go back to John the Baptist, they in¬ 
evitably merge the Old into the New, or fall into the 
awkward position of having a Church founded by one 
who himself had not received "believers’ baptism.” 
If they push forward to Pentecost, then they have the 
anomalous thing of a body of men, not yet organized 
into a Church, who had neither received the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost nor "believers’ baptism,” taking 
from the hands of the Lord himself the Sacrament of 
the Lord’s Supper. Exit close baptism (and conse¬ 
quently close communion); enter prejudice. So this 
boasted Baptist authority washes its hands of the 
whole difficulty by saying that the Church had its 
rise in or about the time Christ was on earth. 

The fact is, the Church was not set up at Pentecost; 
it was endued with power. It was not set up "in or 
about the time that Christ was on the earth”; it was 
let out to other husbandmen. The germ of the Church 
was planted in the soil of God’s covenant with 
Abraham, and out of that soil it grew. It took on its 
first organized visible form as related in Exodus xii. 
3, already noted above. Of Christ’s relation to that 


22 


All About Infant Baptism 


organization, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, 
speaks in Acts vii. At verse 38 he says: “This is he, 
that was in the church [ekklesia] in the wilderness 
with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, 
and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles 
to give unto us.” 

Here it is stated that Moses was a member of the 
Church in the wilderness. “He was in the Church 
with the angel, without whom he could have done no 
service to the Church; but Christ is himself that 
angel which was with the Church in the wilderness, 
and therefore has an authority above Moses” 
(Matthew Henry). This establishes beyond question 
that Christ was in the Old Church as he is in the New; 
that he was the head of the Church then as he is the 
head of the Church now. 

Is there yet doubt? Then hear St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 
1-4): “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye 
should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were 
under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and 
were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
sea; and did all eat of the same spiritual meat; and 
did all drink of the same spiritual drink: for they 
drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and 
that Rock was Christ.” 

Here, then, fifteen hundred years before Christ 
came in the flesh to begin the special work of his dis¬ 
pensation, he baptized in person all the members of 
the then visible Church, men, women, and children, 
and baptism as an initiatory rite into the Church of 
God was never again practiced on Jews by natural 
descent until the apostles were commissioned and sent 
out from Pentecost to make disciples of the nations. 


The Attitude of Jesus 


23 


Now we are ready for a definition of the Church. 
I quote the eminent lexicographer, Herman Cremer, 
Professor of Theology in the University of Griefswald: 

Accordingly, ekklesia denotes the New Testament communi¬ 
ty of the redeemed in its twofold aspect: The entire congrega¬ 
tion of all who are called by and to Christ, who are in the 
fellowship of his salvation—the Church. That the application 
of the word to the Church universal is primary, and that to an 
individual Church secondary, is clear from the Old Testament 
use of the word and from the fundamental statement of 
Christ in Matthew xvi. 18. 

Should there still be doubt as to the identity of the 
New with the Old, turn to Isaiah v. 1-7. There one 
finds that God speaks of his Church under the para¬ 
ble of a vineyard. The marginal reference runs to 
Matthew xxi. 33-46. If we read there, we find that 
the wicked husbandmen in charge of the “vineyard" 
at the time of Christ’s coming slew the heir and at¬ 
tempted to seize on his inheritance. Those wicked 
men God destroyed and “let out his vineyard unto 
other husbandmen.” This Christ warned them God 
would do at verse 43: “Therefore say I unto you, The 
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given 
to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” But 
it will be noted that he did not destroy the vineyard, 
“the kingdom of God”; only the wicked men in 
charge of it. The “vineyard” was let out unto other 
husbandmen. 

The words “synagogue,” “assembly,” “congrega¬ 
tion,” and “Church,” so far as they relate to the 
people of God as a body, are interchangeable terms. 
So certain is this that the French text uses the one 
word “assemblee” almost without exception. 


24 


All About Infant Baptism 


Now, if children were embraced in the meaning of 
those terms in the Old Testament, as I have very 
clearly shown, they must be embraced in the mean¬ 
ing of those terms in the New, unless we find some 
positive interdict on the part of God. Instead of 
finding any prohibition, we hear Peter saying to his 
fellow Jews at Pentecost: “For the promise is unto 
you, and to your children.” (Acts ii. 39.) What 
promise? Why, the promise God made to Abraham 
in the covenant. That covenant was made and prom¬ 
ise given 430 years before the Judaic Church. The 
sign and seal of that covenant was circumcision. By 
that “sign” every Jewish male, on the eighth day of 
his life, entered into visible covenant relations with 
God. They were schooled in the promises of God. 
And when they grew up, if they manifested the faith 
of their fathers, they became heirs, according to the- 
promise of God, and the benefits of grace flowed and 
were sealed to their hearts. So, then, circumcision 
was not of Moses, but of Abraham. 

Now the Apostle Paul (Gal. iii. 29) says: “And if 
ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs 
according to the promise.” Are children Christ’s? 
Christ says they are: “Of such is the kingdom of 
heaven.” Then they are the seed of Abraham; and 
being his seed, they go back beyond the organization 
of the Judaic Church to the covenant God made with 
their spiritual father and become “heirs of the 
promise.” Thus are the Abrahamic and Christian 
covenants identified as one and the same. And as 
children were entitled to the “sign” of the Abra¬ 
hamic, so also they are entitled to the “sign” of the 
Christian. 


The Attitude of Jesus 


25 


“Upon this rock I will build [edify] my church 
[ekklesia]." What rock? Faith in Christ. But that 
is precisely the same way the Abrahamic covenant 
was built up. “Abraham believed God, and it was ac¬ 
counted to him for righteousness.” On the faith of 
the father the children without faith were admitted 
to the benefits of the covenant. Now if the Abra¬ 
hamic covenant, founded in faith, was augmented, 
enlarged, built up by the accession of infants, the 
Christian covenant, grounded in faith and identical 
with the other, is to be built up in the same way. 

At the beginning of the Christian era God did 
not cast all Israel off, for there were some who were 
in “the election of grace,” as St. Paul makes plain in 
Romans xi. 1-5. Jews constituted the Apostolic 
College. The first converts were Jews. The begin¬ 
nings of the Christian Church were shaped by Jews. 
The first Christian sermon was preached by a Jew, 
and the very text of Scripture used then and for many 
years after was the Jewish Bible. There was no 
other. But the church-state of the Jews was abro¬ 
gated, because of the unbelief of the major part of 
them, and into the place of the branches broken off 
the Gentiles, “cut out of the olive tree which is wild 
by nature,” were, “contrary to nature,” grafted, 
grafted “into a good olive tree,” the tree which, we 
have already seen, rooted back in the soil of the 
covenant with Abraham. (See Romans xi. 13-27.) 

Thus the right of children to membership in the 
Church and the sign of the covenant entails in one un¬ 
broken line of succession from God's covenant with 
Abraham down to this good hour. 


CHAPTER II 
Apostolic Practice 

“And I baptized also the household of Stephanas." 

(1 Cor. i. 16.) 

Foreword 

Antip^edobaptists say: “Infant baptism is an evil 
because its practice is unsupported by the word of 
God.” 

Granted that the practice is “unsupported by the 
word of God,” it does not follow for that reason that 
it is an evil. If the simple lack of “support” from 
the word of God constitutes the practice an evil, then 
all the things done by the Churches which the word of 
God does not “support” are likewise evils. And, 
conversely, all the practices of the Church which the 
word of God does “support” are binding in all ages 
of the world, and the omission of any is also evil. 
What sinners that logic would make us all! 

We are nowhere commanded to organize Sunday 
schools, yet we have them, and they have proved to 
be the most powerful auxiliaries of the Church. We 
are not specifically authorized to give the Sacrament 
of the Lord’s Supper to women, yet they commune. 
Positive precept for the erection of church buildings is 
wanting, yet we have rightly inferred that to suc¬ 
cessfully carry on the worship of God among men in 
the world “the body of Christ” must have fixed 
places of meeting, so we build them. On the other 
hand, it is perfectly clear that the washing of feet is 
“supported” by the word of God (see John xiii. 15), 
(26) 


Apostolic Practice 


27 


yet none of the leading denominations of the world 
follow that practice. Nothing is more plainly com¬ 
manded than to “Greet one another with an holy 
kiss” (2 Cor. xiii. 12), yet but few organized Churches 
of the present day obey the command. 

Thus we see that it is a mistake to interpret Scrip¬ 
ture in that foolish and wooden way. As God is a 
rational being and established the Church for rational 
beings, with the command to perpetuate that Church 
in the world, it must be supposed that he left largely 
to the judgment of those who compose the Church the 
means they would employ most effectively to carry 
out that command. Since the vast majority of the 
Christian world is found in the practice of baptizing 
their infants, it must be inferred that they are either 
very degenerate people or have found in it a mighty 
arm of power in the extension of God's kingdom. If 
the minority desires its opinion to hold against the 
majority, let it show that “the baby sprinklers” are 
universally bad, that the practice works evil, or that 
it is positively prohibited by the word of God. 

But since children compose so large a part of the 
mass of mankind, it is not reasonable to believe that 
God was so unmindful of their welfare as to provide 
no place for them in his Church. I cannot think of 
God as being less thoughtful of the welfare of his 
children than I would be of mine. If I were about to 
die, and leave my will, I certainly would not be¬ 
queath all my property to my adult children and 
nothing to my babies, because the adults could and 
the babies could not understand the provisions of 
that will. The Book teaches me that God is no 
respecter of persons, and in the light of that teaching 


28 


All About Infant Baptism 


it is impossible for me to conceive, in the absence of 
any declaration to the contrary, that he has done 
anything for me which he has not likewise done for 
my child. 

In the foregoing chapter I clearly showed the 
identity of the Abrahamic and Christian covenants, 
which incontestably proves the right of children to 
“the sign of the covenant ” in this as they were in the 
past age of the world. In this chapter I shall support 
infant baptism from apostolic practice , showing that 
the apostles received and baptized infants in the 
reception of whole families into the Church. 

The Apostles Received and Baptized Infants. 

1. The Apostle Paul makes the statement: “And 
I baptized also the household [ oikos ] of Stephanas.” 
Now, the question arises, Whom did Paul baptize 
here? The answer is, He baptized an entire family. 
The term oikes means “stock, race, descendants of 
one (man).” Under the title, “House, joined with 
father,” Cruden’s Complete Concordance of the Old 
and New Testaments gives eighty-seven instances in 
the word of God. In seventy-nine of these the word 
oikos is used, viz.: Genesis xii. 1, xx. 13, xxiv. 27, 38, 
40, xxxi. 14, xxxviii. 11, xlvi. 31; Exodus xii. 31; Le¬ 
viticus xxii. 13; Numbers i. 2, 4, 18, 20, 22, 24, 44, 
ii. 2, iii. 15, 20, iv. 38, 42, 46, xvii. 2, *3, xviii. 1, xxx. 
3, 16, xxxiv. 14; Deuteronomy xxii. 21; Joshua ii. 12, 
xxii. 14; Judges vi. 15, ix. 18, xi. 2, xiv. 15, xvi. 31, 
xix. 2, 3; 1 Samuel ii. 27, 30, ix. 20, xvii. 25, xviii. 2, 
xxii. 16, xxiv. 21; 2 Samuel iii. 29, xiv. 9, xix. 28, 
xxiv. 17; 1 Kings ii. 31, xviii. 18; 1 Chronicles ii. 55, 
iv. 38, v. 15, 24, vii. 2, 4, 7, 9, ix. 9, 13, xii. 30, xxi. 


Apostolic Practice 


29 


17, xxviii. 4; Ezra ii. 59, x. 16; Nehemiah i. 6; Esther 
iv. 14; Psalm xlv. 10; Isaiah vii. 17, xxii. 23, 24; 
Jeremiah xii. 6; Luke xvi. 27; John ii. 16; Acts 
vii. 20. 

The word “household” occurs fifty-nine times, 
in thirty-six of which oikos is used, viz.; Genesis 
xviii. 19, xxxv. 2, xlii. 33, xlvii. 12, 24; Leviticus xvi. 
17; Numbers xviii. 31; Deuteronomy vi. 22, xi. 6, 
xiv. 26, xv. 20; Joshua ii. 18, vi. 25, vii. 14; Judges 
vi. 27, xviii. 25; 1 Samuel xxv. 17, xxvii. 3; 2 .Samuel 
ii. 3, vi. 11, 20, xv. 16, xvii. 23, xix. 18, 41; 1 Kings iv. 
7, v. 9, 11; 2 Kings vii. 9, viii. 1; 1 Chronicles xxiv. 
6; Proverbs xxxi. 15, 21, 27; 1 Corinthians i. 16; 
2 Timothy iv. 19. 

Out of a total of one hundred and forty-six in¬ 
stances in the word of God where “house” and 
“household,” meaning family , occur, oikos is used 
one hundred and fifteen times, among them the 
statement of Paul. In the other thirty-one instances 
such interchangeable terms as patria, huios, oikia, 
etc., are used. 

Thayer, in his Corrected Edition of the Greek- 
English Lexicon of the New Testament (Harper & 
Brothers, 1899), having under consideration patria , 
says (page 495): “The Israelites were distributed 
into (twelve) phulai, tribes, descended from the 
twelve sons of Jacob; these were divided into patriai , 
deriving their descent from the several sons of Jacob’s 
sons; and these in turn were divided into oikoi, 
houses (or families).” 

So clearly is this the meaning of the word that 
even Alexander Campbell, in his “The Christian 
System” (page 148), says: 


30 


All About Infant Baptism 


The individual families of the nation of the Jews had still 
their family worship—still the worship of God was heard in the 
dwellings of the righteous; and, like Joshua, every good 
Israelite said: “As for me and my family [ oikia , so the text; 
brackets mine], we will serve the Lord." (See Joshua xxiv. 15.) 

Therefore, wherever the terms oikos, oikia, and 
their synonyms are used in the word of God, in the 
sense of a group of the nearest degree of kindred dwell¬ 
ing together, they should always be translated family. 

Had this been done by the translators in the be¬ 
ginning, there never could have risen any debate and 
confusion over the matter of infant baptism. For 
there cannot possibly be such a thing as a family 
without children in it. So Webster; ‘‘ Family, a group 
comprising a husband and wife and their dependent 
children, constituting a fundamental unit in the 
organization of society.” So clearly is this meaning 
understood by the English-speaking world that we 
universally refer to a woman with child as being in 
a family way. 

Therefore a proper rendering of the statement of 
Paul would be: “And I baptized also the family of 
Stephanas.” 

But still one objects there is nothing in this that 
proves there were children in that particular family. 
I answer that there is nothing that proves there were 
not. The probability is there were. The chances 
are in our favor. The same apostle, laying down the 
qualifications of a bishop (1 Tim. iii. 4), says he must 
be “one that ruleth well his own house [oikos], 
having his children in subjection with all gravity.” 
Here there can be no misunderstanding, for the 
apostle asserts that the family is his own, not the 


Apostolic Practice 


31 


family of some one else, not servants, but his own , 
and the children so small as to be under the necessity 
of being held in restraint. 

Precisely the same rule is applicable to the dea¬ 
cons: “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, 
ruling their children and their own houses [oikos] 
well.” 

But in these cases the children are sufficiently 
advanced in years as to be more particularly under 
the “rule” of the father. To prove that the term 
also implies nursing infants , let us study 1 Timothy 
v. 14: “I will therefore that the young women marry, 
bear children, guide the house [oikodespotein], give 
none occasion to the adversary to speak reproach¬ 
fully.” The term oikodespotein is a compound, made 
up of oikos , “family,” and despoteo , “despotize,” 
or use uncontrolled power. Literally, it means “to 
use uncontrolled power over the family, the off¬ 
spring.” And, pray, who interferes with the mother 
in her care of her tender babe? Who can take her 
place? She is its despot. She understands its cries, 
and she alone of all beings on earth can care for it, 
“guide” it, to use the language of the passage. The 
children of the home are necessarily attached to the 
mother during the period of lactation. After that 
the “rule” of the father begins. But note the order: 
“Marry,” “bear children,” “guide the family.” 

In that day and age of the world large families were 
the rule. A wife who bore her husband no children 
considered her lot a hard one indeed; the greater the 
number of children, the greater the honor. A family 
with no small children in it was a rare thing. 

Then, too, for hundreds of years the Jews had been 


32 


All About Infant Baptism 


schooled in the habit of initiating proselyte families 
into the Church. It was a well-understood provision 
of the old dispensation that whenever the head of a 
house came into the Church the rite of initiation was 
also administered to his family. The children became 
members through no act of their own, but by the act 
of their father. So with naturalization in our day. 
An Englishman, coming with his family into our 
country, goes into open court and declares his inten¬ 
tion of becoming a citizen. In process of time he 
perfects that citizenship. No one acts but him, yet 
he does not leave his family still citizens of England. 
The infant in his mother’s arms from that moment, 
by no act of his own but solely by the act of his father, 
becomes a citizen and is entitled to all the privileges 
this nation affords. Can human governments do 
more for their subjects than God can do for his? 

This principle being so well understood by the 
Jews, I assert that nothing but a positive prohibition 
would have kept them from practicing under the New 
what they had practiced under the Old. Witness the 
disputes that arose in the early days of the Christian 
era about circumcision and the observance of days. 
There was never any dispute about the reception of 
families into the Church. The question as to the 
right of children to baptism, to initiation into the 
Church, was not raised. No one doubted it. No one 
disputed it. So they went on with the reception of 
whole families into the Church, as I shall now pro¬ 
ceed to show. 

2. The first case that attracts our attention in the 
Acts of the Apostles is that of Cornelius. In chapter 
x. 1, 2, 47, 48 we read: “There was a certain man in 


Apostolic Practice 


33 


Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band 
called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that 
feared God with all his house [oikos], which gave 
much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. 
. . . Can any man forbid water, that these should 
not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost 
as well as we? And he commanded them to be 
baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they 
him to tarry certain days.” 

One recognizes in this the opening of the kingdom 
of God to the Gentiles. Here the graft “cut out of 
the olive tree which is wild by nature” began to be 
“grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree.” 
Against Peter’s coming Cornelius “had called to¬ 
gether his kinsmen [suggenes\ and near friends.” Of 
this word suggenes , “kinsmen,” Thayer, citing this 
very passage (Acts x. 24), says: “Of the same kin, 
akin to, related by blood.” So those called together 
could not have been merely his wife, servants, and 
neighbors; for his wife, servants, and neighbors were 
not his kinsmen. They could not have been his 
brothers and sisters and neighbors only, for we are 
told that Cornelius had a family (oikos); and, as we 
have already learned, a family, to be such, must have 
children in it. Therefore he called together his kins¬ 
men—it may be his brothers and sisters were among 
them, but certainly his own family—together with 
his near neighbors, and as soon as Peter arrived 
Cornelius said: “Now therefore are we all here 
present before God, to hear all things that are com¬ 
manded thee of God.” 

Then Peter preached, the Holy Ghost fell upon 
them, and they were all baptized, men , women , and 
3 


34 


All About Infant Baptism 


children. The whole family of Cornelius was re- 
cieved into the Church, along with all the rest there 
present. There is not an exception noted. Peter 
asks: “Can any man forbid water, that these [ tou- 
tons, so the text; “these here visibly present,” so the 
word] should not [me] be baptized?” The form of 
the question with me, “not,” admits of only a nega¬ 
tive answer. It means no one can object. And the 
record shows that no one did object, for all were 
baptized. 

The next case is that of Lydia, Acts xvi. 14, 15: 
“And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of 
purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped 
•God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that 
she attended unto the things which were spoken of 
Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household 
[oikos], she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me 
to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and 
abide there. And she constrained us.” 

Here no extraneous persons can possibly be 
brought into the question. Only Lydia and her 
household {oikos) were baptized. Nor can it be said 
that the children were grown up and received 
baptism after they had believed for themselves; for 
the record plainly states that “she [Lydia] attended 
unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” There 
is not the least intimation that anyone else in that 
home was large enough to “attend ” {prosecho, so the 
text; “to give attention, take heed,” so the word) to 
the things which Paul said. Yet the household, the 
family, was baptized along with the mother. What 
plainer evidence of a family baptism can anyone 
want than that? and what can be plainer than that 


Apostolic Practice 


35 


there were children in that home too small to exercise 
saving faith yet who received baptism with the 
believing mother? 

The next case is that of the Philippian jailer, Acts 
xvi. 30-33: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And 
they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
shalt be saved, and thy house [oikos]. And they 
spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that 
were in his house. And he took them the same hour 
of. the night, and washed their stripes; and was 
baptized, he and all his [hoi autou hapantes ], straight¬ 
way.” 

One observes here that the condition laid down, 
not only for his salvation but also those of his house 
{oikos), is that he believe on the Lord Jesus. Nothing 
is said about the exercise of faith on the part of the 
children. It is the father who is commanded to 
believe. The verb is imperative, second person, 
singular number* 11 Pis tens on [believe thou, not ye] 
on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
house [family], ” He believed, and as a result of that 
belief he and all those out of his own loins were 
baptized, all together. This is a clear instance of 
family baptism. 

The next case is the baptism of Crispus and his 
house, Acts xviii. 8: “And Crispus, the chief ruler of 
the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his 
house; and many of the Corinthians hearing be¬ 
lieved, and were baptized.” 

Here the expression “with all his house” is sun 
holo to oiko autou, “with his entire family.” It is 
expressly stated that the entire family believed, but not 
that it was baptized. Baptism is asserted only of the 


36 


All About Infant Baptism 


many Corinthians who heard and believed, spoken of 
in the last clause of the sentence. But no contender 
for believers' baptism would allow that Crispus and 
his entire family were not baptized, for the simple 
reason that they all believed. If they say that Crispus 
and his entire family were baptized because they all 
believed, then they must allow also that all other 
families marked as Christians, where baptism is not 
expressly asserted, were also baptized. 

The next instance of this character which meets us 
is found in Romans xvi. 10: “Salute them which are 
of Aristobulus’s household.” True, these are not men¬ 
tioned as believing; but since the epistle itself was ad¬ 
dressed “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, 
called to be saints,” it follows unquestionably that 
those in that household were “saints” and therefore 
baptized . 

The next instance is that of Narcissus, Romans 
xvi. 11: “Greet them that be of the household of Nar¬ 
cissus, which are in the Lord.” Here it is not ex¬ 
pressly stated that those in that household were 
baptized; but since they were in the Lord , it follows 
that they were baptized. 

The last case of this character is that of Onesipho- 
rus, 2 Timothy i. 16: “The Lord give mercy [eleos] 
unto the house [ oikos ] of Onesiphorus; for he oft re¬ 
freshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain.” Of 
the term eleos , “mercy,” employed here, Thayer, 
citing this passage, says: “The mercy of Christ, 
whereby at his return to judgment he will bless true 
Christians with eternal life.” So I take it that those 
in that family were true Christians and were there¬ 
fore baptized. 


Apostolic Practice 


37 


3. We have then eight instances of family baptism— 
four of which, Stephanas, Cornelius, Lydia, and the 
jailer, are mentioned expressly as baptized; two, 
Crispus and Narcissus, as “believing" and “in the 
Lord," from which it follows plainly that they were 
baptized; and two, Aristobulus and Onesiphorus, the 
one comprehended among those whom Paul ad¬ 
dressed as “saints," the other embraced in his prayer 
as “true Christians " whom Christ, at his coming, will 
bless with eternal life, and consequently baptized. 

Are there eight instances of the administration of 
the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the New 
Testament? No, not by any means. Can eight clear 
passages be cited for the change of the Sabbath from 
the seventh to the first day of the week? No. Yet 
all Christendom concedes that those services are 
vindicated “by the practice of the apostles as re¬ 
corded in the New Testament," while many vehe¬ 
mently deny, in the face of far weightier testimony, 
their practice of infant baptism. On the face of it 
there seems to be either ignorance or willful rebellion. 

In the book of the Acts of the Apostles there are 
ten recorded separate instances of baptism, viz.: the 
baptism of the multitude at Pentecost (Acts ii. 41), 
the baptism of the Samaritans (Acts viii. 12), the 
baptism of Simon (Acts viii. 13), the baptism of the 
eunuch (Acts viii. 35-37), the baptism of Saul (Acts 
ix. 18), the baptism of the household of Cornelius 
(Acts x. 47, 48), the baptism of Lydia’s household 
(Acts xvi. 15), the baptism of the jailer’s household 
(Acts xvi. 33), the baptism of Crispus’s household 
(Acts xviii. 8), and the baptism of the disciples at 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 5). Of these, two fifths, or nearly 


38 


All About Infant Baptism 


one half, are family baptisms. The proportion is 2 
to 5. The number of names of similar converts in the 
New Testament is said to be fifty-five. If the propor¬ 
tion be carried out, there were then twenty-two bap¬ 
tized families. The aggregate of the specific numbers 
given as baptized at different times in the book of 
the Acts of the Apostles is 3,018, which would by 
the proportion give 1,205 baptized families. Con¬ 
sidering that numerous instances are given where 
many believed, notably at one time “about five 
thousand,” and nothing is said of their baptism, may 
we reasonably conjecture that 10,000 were received 
into the Church in the history of the Acts of the 
Apostles? Then that would give us 4,000 baptized 
families. How many, may it be supposed, were re¬ 
ceived in the whole of New Testament times? 
About 100,000? That would give us 40,000 baptized 
families. 

Does one still insist that I have not proved the 
existence of infants in any of those eight families? 
Remembering that the word oikos , “family,” neces¬ 
sitates children, what are the chances that eight 
families, taken at a venture, will not have at least one 
child somewhere in age between birth and seven 
years? Thus is it proved as nearly as can be done, 
outside of a positive demonstration (which is only 
possible in mathematics), the existence of little 
children in those families, and so have I proved 
apostolic practice in the baptism of infants. 

4. But before I close this chapter I desire to call 
attention to some further facts that throw light on 
this great question. In Proverbs xxii. 6 one reads: 
“Train up [egkainidzo, so the text; “to initiate, 


Apostolic Practice 


39 


consecrate, dedicate, ” so the word] a child [neos, so 
the text; “recently born one,” so the word] in the 
way [kata ten hodon autou, so the text; kata is dis¬ 
tributive and indicates “a succession of things fol¬ 
lowing one another,” hence, initiate him] in [to] 
the way he should go [by a dedication to God]: and 
when he is old, he will not depart from it.” 

The marginal reference is to Ephesians vi. 4 and 
2 Timothy iii. 15. Suppose we turn to those pas¬ 
sages. Ephesians vi. 4 reads: “Children, obey your 
parents in the Lord: for this is right.” Here the 
children are “in the Lord” and also in the Church. 
How do I know they are in the Church? Paul ad¬ 
dressed his letter to the Church—“to the saints which 
are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.” 
Those children were members of the Church; had 
been initiated into the way they ought to go; dedi¬ 
cated to God in baptism. 

Does the dedication of a child to God do any good? 
Can the Spirit of God make any impression on the 
heart of a little child? Let us read 2 Timothy iii. 15: 
“And that from a child [brephos] thou hast known 
[oidas] the holy scriptures, which are able to make 
thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in 
Jesus Christ.” 

This exactly comports with the case of Samuel. 
Hannah had no child, and she keenly felt the sting of 
being childless. She made it a matter of earnest 
prayer: “And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed 
unto the Lord, and wept sore. And she vowed a 
vow, and said, O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt indeed 
look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remem¬ 
ber me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give 


40 


All About Infant Baptism 


unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give 
him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there 
shall no razor come upon his head.” (1 Sam. i. 
10 , 11 .) 

God heard that cry, and a child was born. Did 
Hannah keep her vow? Listen: “And when she had 
weaned him, she took him with her, with three 
bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, 
and brought him unto the house of the Lord in 
Shiloh: and the child was young.” (1 Sam. i. 24.) 
There she dedicated him to God , just as she said she 
would do. 

Did that dedication do the child any good? I 
must answer by his life. He became one of the great¬ 
est judges Israel ever had, remained true to God all 
the days of his life, and died mourned by all. When 
he had anointed Saul king and surrendered the 
government of Israel to him, the people said of him: 
“Thou has not defrauded us, nor oppressed us, 
neither hast thou taken aught [in the way of a bribe; 
brackets mine] from any man’s hand.” (1 Sam. xii. 4.) 

Surely it is a good thing to be akin to the covenant! 


CHAPTER III 

The Practice of the Fathers 

“We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers 
have told us, what work thou didst in their days, in 
the times of old.” (Ps. xliv. 1.) 

Foreword 

Heretofore I have relied upon my own inde¬ 
pendent investigation of original sources. If I have 
in some instances followed the arguments of others, 
I have nevertheless tested those arguments by my 
own investigations, taking nothing for granted be¬ 
cause some man of great learning said so. Manifestly 
I must now depend upon the investigations of others; 
the original sources are not accessible to me. I shall 
make extensive use of “The History of Infant 
Baptism,” by Dr. William Wall, who became Vicar 
of Shoreham, in Kent, in the year 1674, and held that 
position for fifty-three years, or until the day of his 
death, January 13, 1727. He was a man of letters and 
great learning, so much so that the Oxford Academy 
conferred upon him the degree “Doctor in Theology.” 

Because of the fierce controversy that raged in his 
day over the question of infant baptism, he under¬ 
took an investigation of all the “authors that lived 
and wrote within the first 400 years” of the Christian 
era, the same “being an impartial collection of all 
such passages ... as do make for or against it,” 
intending, as he himself affirms, “that the impartial 
management should have left the reader uncertain 
which practice I myself had owned.” (See Preface to 

(41) 


42 


All About Infant Baptism 


“The History of Infant Baptism,” in two parts, page 
xiv, E. P. Dutton & Co.; Turnbull & Spears, 
Printers, Edinburgh.) 

For fidelity to truth this monumental work is un¬ 
equaled. It has stood the test of research, the fires of 
criticism, and remains to this day incontested and 
incontrovertible. 

The Apostolic Age proper ended with the death of 
John about the year 100 A.D., and the Patristic Age 
succeeded. By the term “Fathers” is meant those 
great leaders who succeeded the apostles in the man¬ 
agement and leadership of the Church. They fall 
into four groups: (1) The Apostolic Fathers, Clement 
of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Hermas, and 
Papias, all of whom were born within the Apostolic 
Age; (2) the Ante-Nicene Fathers of the second and 
third centuries, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of 
Alexandria, and Origen (Greek), and Tertullian and 
Cyprian (Latin); (3) the Nicene Fathers of the fourth 
century, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzus, 
Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysos¬ 
tom, and Epiphanius (Greek), and Hilary of Poitiers 
and Ambrose (Latin); and (4) the Post-Nicene Fa¬ 
thers of the fifth and sixth centuries, Cyril of Al¬ 
exandria Theodoret, and John of Damascus (in the 
East), and Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, and 
Gregory the Great (in the West). 

From the death of John on until “the solemn in¬ 
auguration of the imperial state-church” by the Ni¬ 
cene Council, A.D. 325, a distance in history of 
two hundred and twenty-five years, there is great 
obscurity, sometimes well-nigh total darkness, par¬ 
ticularly in the first fifty years of that period. 


The Practice of the Fathers 


43 


Philip Schaff (“History of the Christian Church,” 
Vol. 2, Eighth Edition, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New 
York, 1905, page 7) says: “The hand of God has 
drawn a .bold line of demarcation between the century 
of miracles and the succeeding ages, to show, by the 
abrupt transition and the striking contrast, the dif¬ 
ference between the work of God and the work of 
man, and to impress us the more deeply with the 
supernatural origin of Christianity and the in¬ 
comparable value of the New Testament.” 

Whatever the cause and purpose, the fact remains 
that the darkness is there. In those days the fires of 
the pagan persecution blazed. It was the age of 
faith, painful self-denial, heroism, martyrdom. Men 
were more concerned about living Christianity than 
about writing a defense of it. Hence, “after the 
death of John only a few witnesses remain to testify 
of the apostolic days, and their writings are few in 
number, short in compass, and partly of doubtful 
origin: a volume of letters and historical fragments, 
accounts of martyrdom, the pleadings of two or three 
apologists; to which must' be added the rude epitaphs, 
faded pictures, and broken sculptures of the subter¬ 
ranean church in the catacombs.” (Schaff, “The 
History of the Christian Church,” as above, page 

m 

Since the rise of the Reformation this obscure 
period of history has been the battle ground between 
Roman and Protestant, each claiming it for his creed. 
“But,” Schaff says, “it is a sectarian abuse of history 
to identify the Christianity of this martyr period 
either with Catholicism or with Protestantism. It is 
rather the common root out of which both have 


44 


All About Infant Baptism 


sprung, Catholicism. (Greek and Roman) first and 
Protestantism afterwards.” 

Out of this age of night and tempest, what message 
have the '‘Fathers” brought us regarding the prac¬ 
tice of infant baptism? Let us see. 

The Fathers Practiced Infant Baptism , No Catholic, 
Sect , or Sectary , That Owned Any Water 
Baptism at All , Denying It to Infants 
Even Down to the Twelfth Century 

Of the first group, or Apostolic Fathers, Schaff 
(Vol. 2, page 259) says: ‘‘The apostolic fathers make, 
indeed, no mention of it. But their silence proves 
nothing; for they hardly touch upon baptism at all, 
except Hermas, and he declares it necessary to 
salvation, even for the patriarchs in Hades (there¬ 
fore, as we may well infer, for children also).” 

Of the second group, or Ante-Nicene Fathers, I 
begin with Justin, surnamed the Martyr. He was 
born of pagan parents about the year 100 A.D., and 
was brought up as a pagan, being schooled in the 
philosophies of that day, particularly of the Stoics 
and Platonists, to the last of which he finally adhered. 
He was converted to Christianity about the year 135 
A.D., and thirty years later, or in 165 A.D., died a 
martyr to the faith of Christ. He expressly taught 
‘‘the capacity of all men for spiritual circumcision by 
baptism; and his ‘all’ can with the less propriety be 
limited, since he is here speaking to a Jew.” (Schaff.) 

But Alexander Campbell denies that Justin Mar¬ 
tyr says anything about the question of infant bap¬ 
tism. In his “The Christian System,” page 236, he 


The Practice of the Fathers 


45 


puts Mr. Wall on the stand in the following man¬ 
ner: 

As you trace the history of infant baptism, Mr. Wall, as 
nigh the apostolic times as possible, pray why do you quote 
Justin Martyr, who never mentions it? 

W. Wall.—“Because his is the most ancient account of the 
way of baptizing , next the scripture, and shows the plain and 
simple manner of administering it. Because it shows that the 
Christians of those times (many of whom lived in the days of 
the apostles) used the word ‘ regeneration* (or ‘being born 
again’) for baptism, and that they were taught to do so by the 
apostles. And because we see by it that they understood 
John iii. 5, of water baptism; and so did all the writers of these 
four hundred years, NOT ONE MAN EXCEPTED." (Page 
54.) 

The passage from Wall, out of which this defender 
of the faith built this forgery, is as follows: 

1. Because it is the most ancient account of the way of 
baptizing, next the Scripture, and shows the plain and simple 
manner of administering it. The Christians of these times had 
lived, many of them at least, in the apostles’ days. 

2. Because it shows that the Christians of these times used 
the word regeneration (or being born again) for baptism: and 
that they were taught so to do by the apostles. And it will 
appear by the multitude of places I shall produce that they 
used it customarily and appropriated it as much to signify 
baptism as we do the word christening. They used also 
anakainismos or kainopoiia, renewing, and photismos, en¬ 
lightening, for the same thing: as appears in the first and last 
words of the passage. 

3. Because we see by it that they understood that rule of 
our Saviour, “Except one be regenerated [or born again] of 
water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God,’’ of water baptism, and concluded from it that without 
such baptism no person could come to heaven. And so did 
all the writers of these four hundred years, not one man ex¬ 
cepted. (“History of Infant Baptism,” Vol. 1, as above, 
page 36.) 


46 All About Infant Baptism 

Thus has Campbell wandered over three para¬ 
graphs of this ancient work, taking up words and 
phrases at random and stringing them together as a 
connected statement, with no other purpose than to 
deceive, in order to force this man of God to the sup¬ 
port of a partisan view. By such a process I can 
prove by the Bible itself that the world was never 
created, Adam never sinned, and Christ never died 
for the sins of the world. 

After this display of audacity we are prepared for 
almost anything. Mr. Campbell continues Mr. Wall 
on the stand: 

Did any of the ancients use the word matheteueo (to disciple) 
as it is used in the commission, or did they call the baptized 
discipled? 

W. Wall.—“Justin Martyr, * in his second apology to 
Antoninus, uses it. His words are: “Several persons among 
us, of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who were 
discipled [ matheteueo ] to Christ, in or from their childhood, 
do continue uncorrupted.” (Page 54.) 

The passage from Wall is as follows: 

Several persons among us of sixty and seventy years old, of 
both sexes, who were discipled (or made disciples) to Christ in 
their childhood, do continue uncorrupted (or virgins). 

Thus it will be seen that Mr. Campbell inserted the 
words “or from” in the quotation, without the least 
intimation that they formed no part of the original 
statement, a thing he had no moral right to do, in 
order to make the impression that just as soon as the 
persons in question began to leave the period of child¬ 
hood they were made disciples to Christ , and not while 
they were yet in their childhood. 


The Practice of the Fathers 


47 


To show what the mind of Wall was in regard to 
the meaning of the quotation, I give his full comment 
on the passage: 

St. Justin’s word, ematheteuthesan , were discipled or made 
disciples , is the very same word that had been used by St. 
Matthew in expressing our Saviour’s command, matheteusate, 
disciple (or make disciples) all the nations. And it was done to 
these persons, Justin says, in their childhood. So that whereas 
the Antipaedobaptists do say that when our Saviour bids the 
apostles disciple the nations, baptizing them, he cannot mean 
infants; because he must be understood to bid them baptize 
only such among the nations as could be made disciples: and 
infants, they say, cannot be made disciples; they may per¬ 
ceive that in the sense in which Justin understood the word 
they may be made disciples. And Justin wrote but ninety 
years after St. Matthew, who wrote about fifteen years after 
Christ’s ascension. And they that were seventy years old at 
this time must have been made disciples to Christ in their 
childhood (as he says they were), about thirty-six years after 
his ascension: that is, in the midst of the apostles’ times and 
within twenty years after St. Matthew’s writing. (Pages 36, 
37.) 

Irenaeus, pupil of Polycarp “and a faithful bearer 
of Johanean tradition,” lived from 130-202 A.D. 
In 155 A.D. he went with Polycarp on a mission to 
Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, concerning the dispute 
that had arisen between the Asiatic and Western 
Churches over the observance of Easter. About 177 
A.D. he visited Rome again, bearing letters with 
reference to the Montanists. He wrote in Greek, but 
only a Latin translation is preserved. His work, 
“Against Heresies,” to combat the Gnosticism of that 
day, has been preserved. Schaff says that, according 
to him, “Christ passed through all stages of life to 
sanctify them all, and came to redeem through him- 


48 


All About Infant Baptism 


self ‘all who through him are born again unto God, 
sucklings, children, boys, youths, and adults.’” 

This Wall confirms, quoting from this work, 
“Against Heresies,” the following passage: 

Therefore as he was a Master he had also the age of a 
Master. Not disdaining nor going in a way above human 
nature nor breaking in his own person the law which he had 
set for mankind, but sanctifying every several age by the like¬ 
ness that it has to him. For he came to save all persons by 
himself: all, I mean, who by him are regenerated (or baptized) 
unto God; infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, 
and elder persons. Therefore he went through the several 
ages: for infants being made an infant, sanctifying infants: to 
little ones he was made a little one, sanctifying those of that 
age, and also giving them an example of godliness, justice, and 
dutifulness: to youths he was a youth, etc. (Wall, page 38.) 

Going back to Schaff: 

This profound view seems to involve an acknowledgment 
not only of the idea of infant baptism, but also of the practice 
of it; for in the mind of Irenaeus and the ancient Church 
baptism and regeneration were intimately connected and al¬ 
most identified. In an infant, in fact, any regeneration but 
through baptism cannot be easily conceived. A moral and 
spiritual regeneration, as distinct from sacramental, would 
imply conversion, and this is a conscious act of the will and 
exercise of repentance and faith, of which the infant is not 
capable. (Pages 259, 260.) 

Tertullian, of North Africa, was born before the 
year 160 A.D. and died after the year 220 A.D. 
He became a convert to Christianity before the end 
of the second century. In 203 he became a schismatic, 
going over to the Montanists, and thenceforth was 
unsparingly severe in his denunciation of the “psy¬ 
chics,” as he termed the members of the Catholic 


The Practice of the Fathers 


49 


Church. He was a prominent figure in the history of 
the early Church, and his views were stamped upon 
the theology of the West, giving it a legalistic charac¬ 
ter which it never lost, ultimately passing over into 
Protestantism through Augustine. He opposed the 
practice of infant baptism, not on account of its being 
an innovation, but on the ground of what he termed 
religious prudence. There were seven crimes which 
he called mortal sins, such as adultery, murder, and 
apostasy, and anyone guilty of these after baptism, 
in his view, forever sacrificed the grace of baptism. 
“For no less reason,” to use his own language, 
“unmarried persons ought to be kept off, who are 
likely to come into temptation,” etc. (See Wall, Vol. 
1, page 45.) Therefore the ground of his opposition 
was a fear lest the child so baptized should prove “of 
a wicked disposition” and so forfeit the benefits of 
his baptism, for the ordinance could not be repeated 
and only washed out “the guilt contracted before 
its reception.” 

In his day it was no question whether the children of 
Christian parents might and should be baptized—on this all 
were agreed—but whether they might be baptized so early as 
the second or third day after birth or, according to the pre¬ 
cedent of the Jewish circumcision, on the eighth day. (Schaff, 
Vol. 2, pages 261, 262.) 

Origen was born at Alexandria in the year 185 A.D. 
and died about the year 254 A.D. He was educated 
in the famous catechetical school in that city, with 
Clement as his teacher, and afterwards himself be¬ 
came the head of it. He traveled widely and wrote 
much. It is said that his volumes numbered 6,000. 
At any rate, he was the most learned Christian writer 
4 


50 


All About Infant Baptism 


and teacher of that century. He was strictly ascetic, 
having in his zeal for holiness committed self¬ 
emasculation in order to carry out literally the words 
of Christ at Matthew xix. 12. His father was a 
Christian and died a martyr to the faith under 
Septimius Severus (202 A.D.). It is also said that 
his great-grandfather and grandfather were Chris¬ 
tians, and it is probable that he himself was bap¬ 
tized in infancy. However that may be, he cer¬ 
tainly could not have been ignorant as to whether the 
Churches of that day practiced infant baptism, nor as 
to whether they received the practice from the apos¬ 
tles or not. And here is what he says about it: 

For this also it was, that the Church had from the apostles 
a tradition (or order) to give baptism even to infants. For 
they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew 
that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which 
must be done away by water and the Spirit: by reason of 
which the body itself is also called the body of sin. (Wall, 
Vol. 1, page 52.) 

Cyprian was born at Carthage, about the year 200 
A.D., of a noble and wealthy heathen family. He 
was converted to Christianity and received Christian 
baptism about the year 246 A.D. Two years after, 
contrary to ecclesiastical law and against his own 
protest, he was, by acclamation of the people, raised 
to the Bishopric of Carthage and the head of the 
whole North African clergy and for ten years ad¬ 
ministered the affairs of that office. Under the fierce 
persecutions of Valerian he died a martyr to the 
faith September 14, 258 A.D. 

During his administration a council of bishops was 
held at Carthage in the year 253 A.D., sixty-six being 


The Practice of the Fathers 


51 


present. To that council was addressed a letter by 
one Fidus, a country bishop, concerning two cases 
about which he desired their opinion. One of these 
was as to “ whether an infant, before it was eight days 
old, might be baptized,” he himself holding that it 
should not be. To that letter the council made 
reply: 

Cyprian and the rest of the bishops who were present at the 
council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus our brother, greeting. 
We read your letter, most dear brother, in which you write of 
one Victor, a priest, etc. But as to the case of infants: whereas 
you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three 
days after they are born: and that the rule of circumcision is 
to be observed, so that none should be baptized and sanctified 
before the eighth day after he is born, we are all in our assem¬ 
bly of the contrary opinion. 

Then after going through a lengthy discussion of the 
question, pointing out what seemed to them the 
error of his position, they conclude as follows: 

This therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the as¬ 
sembly; that it is not for us to hinder any person from baptism 
and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and affection¬ 
ate to all. Which rule, as it holds for all; so we think it is more 
especially to be observed in reference to infants and persons 
newly born: to whom our help and the divine mercy is rather 
to be granted, because by their weeping and wailing at their 
first entrance into the world they do intimate nothing so 
much as that they implore ccfmpassion. Dear brother, we 
wish you always good health. (Wall, Vol. 2, pages 63, 64.) 

The quotations out of the Nicene and Post-Nicene 
Fathers I shall not weary the reader by giving, since 
the practice is conceded from Tertullian on this way 
by even the most radical Antipaedobaptists. Alexan¬ 
der Campbell (“The Christian System,” page 237) 


52 


All About Infant Baptism 


says: “Tertullian, the first who mentions infant 
baptism [though he was not; brackets mine], 
flourished about A.D. 216. He writes against the 
practice,” etc. 

We have seen that Tertullian was born a heathen 
sometime before the year 160 A.D., was converted 
to Christianity, and became a schismatic in 203 A.D. 
by going over to the Montanists. His opposition to 
the practice must therefore have been between 160 
and 203. To have opposed it he must have found the 
practice in vogue at the time of his entrance into the 
Church, or he would have opposed it as an innovation 
and not on the ground of prudence. 

The Montanists to whom Tertullian turned were 
also in the practice of infant baptism. This sect 
originated in Asia Minor under the leadership of 
Montanus. The date of its rise is variously put at 
from 126 A.D. to 180 A.D. Taking the mean , this 
would fix its rise at 150 A.D., or just fifty years from 
the days of the apostles. ' And this sect was not 
originally a departure from the faith. The Church, 
then, must have been in the practice when that sect 
arose. Besides, Schaff says (Vol. 2, page 260): 

In the Churches of Egypt infant baptism must have been 
practiced from the first. For, aside from some not very clear 
expressions of Clement of Alexandria, Origen distinctly de¬ 
rives it from the tradition of the apostles; and through his 
journeys in the East and West he was well acquainted with 
the practice of the Church in his time.* 

If infant baptism was practiced “in the Churches 


*See also-George A. Lofton’s “English Baptist Reforma¬ 
tion,” page 251. 



53 


The Practice of the Fathers 

of Egypt” from the first, when was that “first”? 
4 ‘Christianity reached proconsular Africa in the 
second, perhaps already at the close of the first 
century, we do not know when and how.” (Schaff, 
Vol. 2, page 27.) 

Thus we can, to a moral certainty, trace the prac¬ 
tice of infant baptism in four different ways from the 
days of the apostles to Tertullian’s time, 160-220 
A.D., this side of which the practice is no longer in 
dispute. Briefly recapitulated, those four ways are 
as follows: (1) Through the testimony of Irenaeus, the 
pupil of Polycarp, who was in turn the disciple of 
John; (2) through the testimony of Justin Martyr, 
some of whose associates, sixty or seventy years old, 
were baptized in infancy, or in the midst of the 
apostles' days; (3) through the testimony of Origen, 
himself baptized in infancy, whose father, grand¬ 
father, and great-grandfather were Christians, run¬ 
ning in an unbroken line far back into the apostles' 
days; and (4) through the practice of the Montanists 
and the Church of North Africa. 

Such is the practice of the Catholics. We must go 
now to the “sects.” 

We have already seen that the Montanists, to 
whom Tertullian turned, had nothing different from 
the Catholics with respect to infant baptism. What 
about the Novatians? 

This “sect” had its rise in the third century. 
They were followers of one Novatus, who was excom¬ 
municated from the Catholic Church about 251 A.D. 
They were also sometimes called Cathari. The issue 
raised betwen them and the Catholics was very sim¬ 
ilar to the one raised between the Montanists and 


54 


All About Infant Baptism 


the Catholics, which issue reappeared in the fourth 
century in what is known as the Donatist controversy. 
As asserted in the creed, both believed that the 
Church was holy, the Novatians contending that 
holiness applied to the membership; the Catholics, to 
the sacraments. Both practiced infant baptism. 

The Donatists, followers of Donatus the Great, 
a schismatic body of Christians in North Africa, as we 
have already seen, took their rise in the fourth 
century. Under the persecutions of Diocletian, 303 
A.D., the Christians were ordered to give up their 
Bibles. Those who did so were contemptuously 
called traditors by their more steadfast fellows, and 
the question in the Church came to be how to dealwith 
those who did surrender. The main body of the Church 
favored mildness; the Donatists, extreme measures. 
So the schism. 

Did they practice infant baptism? That is the 
question. Since the Baptists have been accustomed 
to claiming the Donatists in their line of succession , 
I presume a Baptist authority on that point will be 
considered sufficient. 

British bishops were at the Catholic Council of Nice in 325 
A.D., and at the Council of Arles and other convocations of 
Catholic bishops before the time of Austin in England. Like 
the Novatians and Donatists, who revolted from Rome and 
still retained her polity and infant baptism (250-389), these 
British Christians, though independent of Rome, were at that 
time very much like Rome. (George A. Lofton, D.D., 
“English Baptist Reformation," page 11, Charles T. Dearing, 
Louisville, Ky., 1899.) 

But of the “sects” in those first four hundred 
years there is scarcely any end. One’s patience would 


The Practice of the Fathers 


55 


fail in tracing them all. I shall therefore conclude 
with Wall’s general survey: 

Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Austin, and Theodo- 
ret, who wrote each of them catalogues of all the sects and 
sorts of Christians that they knew or had ever heard of, do 
none of them mention any that denied infant baptism, except 
those who denied all baptism. (Wall, Vol. 1, page 263.) 

This establishes the practice from the apostles 
to the beginning of the fifth century. What about it 
from then on to the year 1000? Wall says: 

As in the first four hundred years there is none but one, 
Tertullian, who advised it to be deferred till the age of reason, 
and one, Nazianzen, till three years of age, in case of no danger 
of death. So in the following six hundred years there is no 
account or report of any one man that opposed it at all. 
(Vol. 2, page 123.) 

Frequently one reads in some cheap doctrinal 
tract the published claim of some Roman Catholic 
priest that the Bible does not authorize the baptism 
of infants, but that the practice was instituted by the 
Roman Catholic Church. This is purely an appeal to 
prejudice and, being so, has been made to render 
faithful service to both the Roman Catholic and 
Antipaedobaptist causes. 

There is a fatal weakness in that claim, which the 
Antipaedobaptists either do not see or hope we will 
not see. If the Roman Catholic Church instituted 
the practice of infant baptism, then the minutes of the 
council in which the practice was instituted ought to 
show that action in the proceedings. So I believe. 
So every sane man must believe. With that con¬ 
viction I addressed a letter to the Dallas Morning 
News , August 12, 1912: 


56 


All About Infant Baptism 


Did any council of the Catholic Church ever formally in¬ 
stitute the practice of infant baptism? If so, what council? 
In case there was such formal action, I will thank you for 
the canon. 

To this I received the following reply: 

Without having the opportunity to go very thoroughly into 
the matter of infant baptism, we can quote from the Catholic 
Encyclopedia as follows: 

“St. Cyprian’s letter to Fidus declares that the Council of 
Carthage in 253 reprobated the opinion that the baptism of 
infants should be delayed until the eighth day after birth. 
The Council of Milevis in 416 anathematizes whosoever says 
that infants lately born are not to be baptized. The Council 
of Trent solemnly defines the doctrine of infant baptism 
(Sess. VII, Can. XII). It also condemns (Can. XIV) the 
opinion of Erasmus that those who have been baptized in 
infancy should be left free to ratify or reject the baptismal 
promises after they had become adult. Theologians also call 
attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be 
saved, he does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either 
water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also 
of the universality of original sin and of the all-compre¬ 
hending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and abso¬ 
lutely in the Scriptures as to leave no solid reason for denying 
that infants are included as well as adults.” 

The practice of infant baptism seems to have been of too 
long standing to be made the subject of formal institution by 
the Roman Church. 

There is no record of the institution of infant 
baptism except in the word of God. That institution 
took place at the foot of Sinai, when all Israel entered 
into covenant with God. Its practice has not ceased 
to this day. It has had one unbroken line of succes¬ 
sion from Exodus xix. 10 to this good hour. Peter 
Bruis, founder of the sect of Petrobrusians in the year 


The Practice of the Fathers 


57 


1146 A.D., is the first Antipsedobaptist preacher in the 
world, and the sect he founded is the first Christian 
Church in all the world to hold to that opinion. If 
the Baptists go through the Petrobrusians back to the 
apostles, they will have to wade infant baptism all the 
way, and up to their eyes, without finding, like Noah's 
dove, a single place to rest their weary feet. 


CHAPTER IV 

Under the Great Commission # 

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo t * 

I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world.” (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) 

Foreword 

Should some person some two thousand years 
hence delve into the literature of this present genera¬ 
tion, he could not but be impressed with the fact that 
many things new and strange came into existence in 
this age. For example, the invention of “the flying 
machine” and the daring exploits of “the bird men’* 
are so much discussed in current literature he could 
not escape the conclusion that flying machines began 
to be in this age and that their novelty attracted wide 
attention. Coming on down a few hundred years from 
this time and finding little or nothing said about fly¬ 
ing machines, but the literature of that day abound¬ 
ing in descriptions of the novelties of the time, he 
would not infer from that silence that the people no 
longer used flying machines, unless he should find 
somewhere a law of the nation proscribing their use 
among the people. Or, if he should find where some 
in that age were opposing the use of flying machines, 
he would not infer from that opposition that the 
practice had just then come into vogue, but that it 
had been running straight on from its rise. 

(58) 


Under the Great Commission 


59 


Precisely this is the case with reference to infant 
baptism. In all the history of it I have not found the 
record of any who opposed it as an innovation. The 
only conclusion I am able to draw from this is that 
nowhere within the Christian era did the practice 
take its rise. But it must have had a beginning some¬ 
time, somewhere; and since there is no account of its 
origin this side the birth of Christ, we must look for 
that beginning in the centuries beyond. If we find it 
there, then the inevitable conclusion will be that the 
practice has kept steadily on through all the suc¬ 
ceeding centuries since that day. 

Turning to the records of the people who shaped 
the beginnings of the Christian Church, we read: 
“And when a stranger shall sojourn [ proserchomai , 
so the text; “approach God, in order to receive his 
atonement and grace,” so the word] with thee, and 
will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be 
circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; 
and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for 
no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.” (Ex. xii. 
48.) 

This was given before the departure of the children 
of Israel from the land of bondage. After that de¬ 
parture, after the passage of the Red Sea, they 
were all baptized unto Moses, the type of Christ, 
in the cloud and in the sea, and had come to the foot 
of Sinai, the Lord commanded Moses: “Go unto the 
people, and sanctify [hagnidzo] them to-day and to¬ 
morrow, and let them wash their clothes. ” (Ex. xix. 
10.) The term “sanctify” in this connection means 
to purify , “the same kind of purification required of 
the priests for divine service, and indeed all who be- 


60 


All About Infant Baptism 


longed to the chosen people’’ (Cremer). The 
prescription for purifying the priests was: “And thus 
shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle 
water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all 
their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so 
make themselves clean.” (Num. viii. 7.) 

Then, again, we find this requirement: “And if a 
stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among 
you in your generations, and will offer an offering 
made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord; as ye do, 
so he shall do.” (Num. xv. 14.) 

So here are three separate and distinct things re¬ 
quired of the Jews at their entering into covenant 
with God at Sinai: circumcision , baptism , and the 
offering of a bloody sacrifice. This was the require¬ 
ment for all males; baptism and the sacrifice, for all 
females. 

Here, then, is the institution of infant baptism, 
and the practice has not ceased to this day. As with 
them, so with the stranger. When a proselyte was 
received, he went through precisely the same process. 
In proof, I give one of the many quotations listed out 
of their writings by Wall (Vol. 1, page 6): 

“As you are, so shall the stranger be.” As you are; that is, 
as was done to your fathers. And what was done to them? 
Your fathers did not enter into covenant but by circumcision 
and baptism and sprinkling of blood. So neither do proselytes 
enter into covenant, but by circumcision and baptism and 
sprinkling of blood. 

When a heathen family was brought in, the father 
and all his male children were circumcised, then the 
entire family was baptized, and a bloody offering was 
made for all. This practice was so widely known 


Under the Great Commission 


61 


among the nations of that day who had any inter¬ 
course with the Jews that even Christ charged the 
Jews with compassing land and sea to make pros¬ 
elytes to their faith. (Matt, xxiii. 15.) 

Now, Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to 
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to 
destroy, but to fulfill.” Whatever, therefore, was 
not fulfilled of the law and the prophets in his suf¬ 
ferings and death was continued. His death took 
away the need of the bloody sacrifice; the type was 
realized. The descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost 
took away the necessity of circumcision; the type was 
realized. But one thing remained of the initiatory 
rites, and that was water baptism. This Christ 
perpetuated to the end of time: “Go ye therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even 
unto the end of the world.” 

If Christ had said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all 
nations, circumcising them,” none would have mis¬ 
understood its application to children. Why, then, 
do men persist in misunderstanding the application 
when he uses baptizing , a thing commanded of the 
Jews, and which they had been practicing for fifteen 
hundred years? Does one suppose that if those early 
Christian Jews had ceased to baptize children, had 
ceased to receive babies along with their parents into 
the Church, the matter would have excited no notice? 
It would have raised the greatest controversy in the 
early Church. The fact, then, that there is no record 
of any such controversy, no intimation given that the 


62 


All About Infant Baptism 


practice ceased, is the strongest possible presumptive 
evidence that the question was never raised. That 
silence, together with Christ’s injunction, “Suffer the 
little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; 
for of such is the kingdom of God,’’ settles the ques¬ 
tion beyond any shadow of doubt. 

Children Must Be Included under the Great 
Commission 

Here any specific reference to infants as such is 
wanting. But in the light of what has just been said 
in our “Foreword,” how must those Jews, to whom 
that commission was given, have understood it? 
There was no other nation in that day that made even 
a pretense of worshiping the true God, and conse¬ 
quently they had no other example than their own to 
follow, unless Christ should give them something 
new. That he did not do. What attitude, then, must 
we expect them to take with reference to the child? 

Suppose the bishop, acting under the authority of 
the Church, should command me to go to some island 
of the sea, where the people had never heard the name 
of Jesus, and make disciples of the natives: Would 
you expect me to baptize the infants? Naturally. 
Why? Because infant baptism is the practice of the 
Methodist Church. Suppose, on the other hand, the 
Baptist Church should send a man to that same is¬ 
land: Would you expect him to baptize the babies? 
No. Why? Because it is contrary to the teaching of 
that Church. What, then, must one expect those 
Jews to do, who had in their hands a commission, a 
commission without qualification, to make disciples 
of the nations of the earth? There is and can be but 


Under the Great Commission 


63 


one answer: They would bring into covenant relation 
every child. 

Did Christ, then, in the commission authorize the 
baptism of infants? It is impossible to fulfill it with¬ 
out baptizing the infants. 

Let us look into the construction of the com¬ 
mission. In the foregoing pages I have frequently 
adverted to the fact that the word matheteusate , 
translated “teach’’ in the commission, means “make 
disciples”; that is, introduce them into the school of 
Jesus, make them learners. As the matter stands in 
the Authorized Version, there are two imperatives, 
“go” and “teach,” but that is a mistranslation. It 
is the making of disciples that is imperative; the 
“going” is in the participle form, so is the baptizing 
and so the teaching. The correct translation is, 
“ Going [or as you go] into all the world, make all the 
nations disciples, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you through all 
the days to the end of the age.” 

But notice the order: Going, baptizing, teaching, 
make disciples. The missionary activities of the 
Church are comprehended in the going. That brings 
the Church into contact with the nations. The next 
step is introducing them into the school of Jesus, 
which can only be done by baptism, the only thing 
remaining of the initiatory rites which was not fulfilled 
by the sufferings and death of Christ. Then follows 
the course of instruction in that school. The plan 
primarily belongs to Jesus, not to me, and contenders 
for the letter of the law should make no protest. 


64 


All About Infant Baptism 


Now, the matter of making disciples involves two 
elements, matriculation and instruction; in the school 
of Christ, baptizing and teaching. Matheteuo means 
“to instruct anyone, to teach, to make anyone a 
disciple,” ... it “being divided . . . into the two 
elements baptidzein and didaskein.’ ’ (Cremer, page 
412.) 

But the baptizing comes first, the teaching after. 
Paul seems to recognize this, for we read: “And it 
came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, 
Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to 
Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto 
them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye 
believed? And they said unto him, We have not so 
much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye 
baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the bap¬ 
tism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they 
should believe on him which should come after him, 
that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they 
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And 
when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy 
Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, 
and prophesied. And all the men were about 
twelve. And he went into the synagogue, and spake 
boldly for the space of three months, disputing and 
persuading the things concerning the kingdom of 
God.” (Acts xix. 1-8.) 

Precisely the same principle is observed in all the 
family baptisms, which we noticed in the second 
chapter. Paul’s work among the Gentiles from be¬ 
ginning to end implies it. The Jews had been under 


Under the Great Commission 


65 


the tutelage of the Church for over fifteen hundred 
years, and it is not to be supposed that the Gentiles, 
in the short space of Paul’s ministry among them, 
could have advanced to the Jews’ knowledge of God. 
If, then, they had waited for their instruction before 
they received their baptism , some of them would have 
been waiting until now; for after nearly two thousand 
years of the Christian Church some of its members 
have not yet attained to the knowledge the Jews had 
nearly four thousand years ago of the infant’s right 
to membership in the Church and the sign of the 
covenant. So in their rude, ignorant state Paul 
matriculated them, as little children, in the school of 
Jesus and, as their teacher, began to give them their 
course of instruction in the mysteries of the kingdom 
of heaven. 

Now, if Philip could, by baptism, introduce a rude, 
uncouth, mercenary person like Simon, a man “in 
the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity,” 
into the school of Jesus, pray, what crime do I commit 
when I introduce, by the same process, an innocent 
child as a learner in the kindergarten department of 
the same school? 

There has never been a national Church that did 
not baptize children. The Greek Catholics, as the 
State Church of Russia; the Roman Catholics, as the 
State Church of Italy, and various other nations of 
the world; the Episcopalian, as the State Church of 
England; the Presbyterian, as the State Church of 
Scotland; the Lutheran, as the State Church of 
Germany—all these practice the rite. It would be 
impossible to disciple a nation without including the 
children. Of that vast horde of 2,000,000 souls that 
5 


66 


All About Infant Baptism 


poured out of Egypt into the wilderness, 600,000 were 
men. Allowing an equal number of women, there 
were 800,000 children. In no way could that nation 
of Jews be said to have entered into covenant with 
God had those 800,000 children been excluded. So 
no nation can possibly be said to be discipled, entered 
as learners in the school of Jesus, whose children are 
excluded from baptism. In fact, a nation cannot be 
said to be discipled as long as there is a single citizen 
in it unbaptized. The purpose of the commission 
and the aim of the Church is to bring all the nations 
of the world into covenant relations with God. The 
most effective way to accomplish that task is by in¬ 
troducing infants into the school of Christ and 
grounding them in the knowledge of God. 

But it is contended that infant baptism is com¬ 
pulsory religion and contrary to the spirit of religious 
liberty. When it is imposed by the law of the 
Church, it is compulsory religion and leads to a profa¬ 
nation of the sacrament; but when left to the option 
of the parents, it is no longer “compulsory.” It is 
allowable that a parent may do anything for his child 
which, in his judgment and the common judgment of 
mankind, is for the good of the child. 

If the proselyte “who came over to the Jewish re¬ 
ligion and was baptized into it had any infant chil¬ 
dren then born to him, they also were at the father’s 
desire circumcised and baptized and admitted as 
proselytes. The child’s inability to declare or 
promise for himself was not looked on as a bar against 
his reception into the covenant: but the desire of his 
father to dedicate him to the true God was counted 
available and sufficient to justify his admission. 


Under the Great Commission 


67 


. . . And the reason which the Jewish writers give, 
why it was not necessary to stay to see whether the 
child, when come to age, would be willing to engage 
himself to the covenant of the true God or not, is 
this: that it is out of the reach of any doubt or con¬ 
troversy, that this is for his good. Where there may 
be any question made whether a thing be beneficial 
or not, the concerns of a child are not to be disposed 
of by another: but here the benefit of being dedicated 
to Jehovah (of which dedication these rites were the 
sacrament and seal) is evident and unquestionable. 
One may (as they give the reason) ‘privilege a per¬ 
son, though he be incapable of knowing it; but one 
ought not to disprivilege a person without his knowl¬ 
edge.’” (Wall, Vol. 1, page 7.) 

In other words, a father may by will leave his 
infant child any sum in his possession at the time of 
hjs death; that is, privilege him in any sum; and none 
will deny his right: but in all justice he may not dis¬ 
inherit, disprivilege the child; for against that the 
judgment of mankind rebels. 

So in religion. If there be an infinitely just and 
good God, as we are taught to believe, who has 
entered into a covenant of mercy with mankind, then 
it is allowable for me to do anything consistent with 
reason and revelation to bring my child into the 
benefits of that covenant. This all must allow. 

Suppose, then, the dedication of my child to God 
in holy baptism should prove a means of grace to 
him; that, when he grows up to riper years and can 
choose for himself, the knowledge that I had dedi¬ 
cated him to God in infancy should appeal to him in 
such a way as to influence him to make his own the 


68 


AIL About Infant Baptism 


choice I had made for him when he could not make it 
himself; then clearly I have privileged my child, 
though he is incapable of knowing and appreciating 
it now. But suppose from “scruples” of one sort or 
another I put the matter off “until he knows what 
he is doing,” “is old enough to choose for himself,” 
and when that time comes he should feel that no 
man, not even his father, cared for his soul and turn 
from God to a life of sin and shame; then I have dis- 
privileged my child without his knowledge, have been 
careless with respect to his soul and guilty of the 
grossest impiety. 

Or if it should chance to be that “these paradises 
are all nonsense, and God a monstrous fable”; that 
what the prophets have told, sages believed, and poets 
sung, this religion of ours is a fiction and our hope of 
immortality but the imaginings of fevered brains; 
then I have done him no wrong, since I have com¬ 
mitted him to nothing he cannot renounce when he 
shall have reached the years of choice. 

“ If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose 
you this day whom ye will serve: . . . but as for me 
and my family, we will serve the Lord.” 



















